(.net) technology and society

May 29, 2006

Real-World Community (2.0)

The erosion of real-world community is a compelling topic. As our culture has evolved lifestyles away from the community interactions that were driven by churches, stay-at-home parents, etc., we've failed to come up with replacement connections that are pervasive, cross-generational, cross-cultural, and real-world. New community networks were discussed at this weekend’s WineCamp.

As individuals, we move between destination locations such as
school, home, and work. Though we typically have community sustained
within each of our destinations, the idea of a contextual community has
been lost. A byproduct of car culture is the loss of context, the
connection with the people and places en route. The difference is
highly visible when you compare pedestrian communities such as
Manhattan with auto communities such as San Jose.

There's a new collective living model being fostered in Berkeley.
(Where else?) This model differs from the NYC co-op, the San Francisco
TIC, or the Miami condo. Here, the community is run on a consensus
model, much like the US Senate or a local jury. Oddly enough, liability
and insurance are the major issues in the collective. Responsibility
gets handled in a variety of ways: In a group house, there is one
person on the lease
and they have the insurrance. On the other hand, if a single owner is
renting out residential space at scale, he or she would need a higher
level of business insurance. Legally, you have less control over the
space when you
are not an occupant yourself.

Moving from home to work, there is also a growing need
for co-work communities coming from small businesses and independent
workers. These folks feel the need for increased social interaction,
and are
willing to pay for a space, but don't want to pay an arm and a leg.
In an inexpensive incarnation, a $1000 workspace is shared by 10 people
for $100/month each, with a "desk reservation" system that ensures
people get their niche when they need it.

A collective work model being developed by Innovation Commons
serves as a template for other folks that want to create more ambitious
co-worker communities. The main physical area is a
café-like commons, with satellite workspaces. Collaboration happens
here, not just space sharing. A core group invests in the space coming
together, but then make it free or inexpensive for others to
attend. Referrals are often involved, and new workspace members have to
establish themselves as a trustworthy
drop-in before getting a key.

In all of these real-world communities, leadership definitions are
challenging. Communities run by a single leader are often the simplest
model, but there weren't many popular examples of it shared at
WineCamp.

At BarCamp, leaders that
sustain the spirit of the event tend to emerge in each of its local
communities. There is a decentralized hierarchy within the BarCamp
network, and each local community tends to develop its own leader
channel. This not only is part of enabling local character, but is also
creating local champions. Since It's human
nature to want a leader, the communities often look to their champions
as informal leaders. The online equivalent is a group wiki, with one
passionate contributor that assumes an informal editorial role.

Leaving this conversation, someone made the great comment that
co-spaces are "ready to leave survival mode and instead pursue a shared
vision." How a positive collaboration comes together has yet to be
defined.

Comments

Real-World Community (2.0)

The erosion of real-world community is a compelling topic. As our culture has evolved lifestyles away from the community interactions that were driven by churches, stay-at-home parents, etc., we've failed to come up with replacement connections that are pervasive, cross-generational, cross-cultural, and real-world. New community networks were discussed at this weekend’s WineCamp.